IMPD, We Need To Have a Talk

Last month, the latest officer from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was arrested with an allegation of drunk driving. At least seven other IMPD officers have been arrested for similar charges since 2013. Other recent headlines show that an IMPD officer is on administrative leave due to accusations of spousal abuse. And there's the strange case of an IMPD officer found dead in a home, the same home that another man died in after an ingestion of chloroform.

IMPD, we need to have a talk.

When I was writing this blog on a more regular basis, I had several people within IMPD, officers and others, who would come to me as sources. When I ran for council in 2011, I was the only non-major party candidate endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 86. I've also had Rick Snyder from the FOP on the former podcast Civil Discourse Now. I'm not listing these things to brag, but to show that this is coming from someone who respects law enforcement and is sympathetic to how difficult the job can be, especially with the current occupants of the 25th floor.

But I'm finding it more and more difficult to defend IMPD in cases like these.

In her weekly column in the Indianapolis Recorder, Shannon Williams recounted an experience she had  when she reported an officer's behavior to the Citizen Police Complaint Board. Williams, the President of the Recorder Media Group, had called dispatch to file a report because her dog was struck in a hit and run. She was able to file a report, and she had no problems filing the complaint with the board, but the official report on the officer uncovered the officer's side of the incident.

Williams claims that:

"...aspects of the report were not only inaccurate, but some “findings” were actual lies. My words were misconstrued completely and a false stage was set in an attempt to dispute my complaint or substantiate the inappropriate behavior of the officer."

Among the specific claims that Williams found most ludicrous was that she was a victim of domestic violence, the officer claiming she never wanted a report filed, and that she lacked credibility. She also referred to the driver who hit her dog as "a gentleman", which the officer found inconsistent.

Williams' overall point was that even though this was a minor transgression, she was shocked at the length IMPD went to discredit her for an officer that she alleged to be rude and incompetent. If this is what they do when an officer is rude to a citizen, to what extent are they going to protect someone who does something beyond rude?

The last several years, rank and file officers and top brass have tried to promote a message that this is a new IMPD. Unfortunately, I can't say much has changed. A lot needs to be addressed from the top on down. I don't think the 25th floor or the top brass is going to step up to the challenge, so I hope the rank and file will help themselves out. It is going to be difficult, but it has to be done.

And it wouldn't hurt if the mayoral candidates weighed in on this as well.

Doctor Director Straub vs IMPD Continues...on the INTERNET!

There is a new video from the heirstraub YouTube account that contains several stunning accusations in regards to the Good Doctor Frank Straub. Among them was that one of his sons came to visit, but he wasn't available so he had one of his security detail officers take him out on the city's dime.


It seems like whoever is behind the heirstraub account is also disappointed in recent actions by the president of the Fraternal Order of Police, William Owensby. Owensby recently sat down with Straub and other officials from the Department of Public Safety and reportedly had a good conversation. The heirstraub user is taking that as if Owensby and the FOP are now going to roll over.

I don't buy that. I spoke to Owensby when the City-County Council committee was hearing public comment on Straub's re-confirmation. Owensby spoke passionately on his position that Straub is not the right man to lead the charge on any type of reform within the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. Just because the very public war of words is over doesn't mean Owensby and the FOP have compromised their position.

On another note, I've noticed the heirstraub video uploads refer to Greg Ballard as Mayor Marine. It seems to be a common nickname for those who have been let down by the Ballard administration.

IMPD vs Doctor Director Straub Continues

Two YouTube accounts (here and here) have been created in the past few days, uploading one video each. The videos are highly critical of Paul Ciesielski, Chief of Police of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, and Frank Straub, Director of the Department of Public Safety.

YouTube played a role in the last municipal election allowing people to upload videos quickly to respond to relevant issues bought up during the campaign, and for politicians and political parties to post campaign ads without having to pay for television or radio air time. It's also worth noting that candidates often don't take down these campaign YouTube accounts even after they lose or set up a new one account. Ballard's old campaign commercials, for example, can still be found here. Sir Hailstone, a long time blog commenter, still has his account open here. And the anonymous themchammer still has his up here. Most official YouTube channels of campaigns and parties can be found easily through their official web sites.

Below are the videos concerning IMPD:

City-County Council Committee Reapproves Straub as DPS Director

The City-County Council Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee took up several appointments and reappoints to various boards and departments this evening. Several were all grouped together and voted on as a package. What I found interesting was that Paul Page was being reappointed to the Marion County Public Defender Board. Paul Page, who is a criminal defense attorney, made headlines earlier in the year for a series of deals he struck with Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi. Some alleged that those deals were very lenient and were done because of Page's and Brizzi's business relationship. They own a piece of property together in Elkhart, Indiana that is rented out to the state of Indiana. The Democrats usually jump at connecting Brizzi to Republicans, and I'm surprised no one mentioned the controversy surrounding Page.

The other major piece on the agenda was Frank Straub, who was chosen by Mayor Greg Ballard to be reappointed as director for the Department of Public Safety.

Straub testified to the council, only facing tough questions from the Democrats, most of whom weren't members of the committee. He regularly took several minutes to ramble on and on and on to answer relatively direct questions. I also felt Straub's tone with the committee sounded like he was leading a lecture at an academic institution rather than answering questions being asked by a legislative body. This is a problem that some PhD holders have. They spend so much time in academic institutions studying and talking to associates who have similar or higher degrees, and they forget that the rest of the world isn't a classroom.

Public comment was moderated by a time limit of two minutes with a buzzer that goes off after the two minutes. Fortunately, this wasn't enforced, but it was still nonetheless annoying. Surprisingly, despite the Fraternal Order of Police encouraging officers to contact their council representation and testify at committee, few chose the option to testify. A few retired officers and clergy members testified in favor of Straub. The Chief of Police, Paul Ciesielski, and one other officer testified in favor of Straub. Outside of FOP President Bill Owensby, only a few of the other members who took advantage of public comment testified against Straub.

In the crowd were several City-County Councillors and at least one At-Large candidate, Annette Johnson (D). Several members of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department attended the meeting in uniform but stayed silent during public comment. Several from the Indianapolis Fire Department attended as well.

Now that I've got the reporting of the layout out of the way, here's my editorial.

Frank Straub is not a police officer. He is a director of the Department of Public Safety. His duties are basically an administrator. He handles the budgets of the respective departments, makes sure they are exchanging information with each other and ensures communication is open between the departments of the Mayor.

Despite some police scandals happening while Straub's predecessor, Scott Newman, was in charge, you didn't see Newman on television very often. In fact, you probably see Newman on TV more often NOW than you did while he was the director of DPS.

Straub has not only gone beyond his authority, but has used it to tarnish IMPD officers. Officer Jerry Piland, who was accused of brutally beating Brandon Johnson, was cleared by the Police Merit Board. The Merit Board heard over 24 hours of testimony and found that the evidence against Piland was poor and seemed like Piland acted properly. They even thought that another officer's actions were worth investigating, but their scope was narrowed to Piland's actions.

Despite the Merit Board clearing Piland of any wrongdoing, Straub was on camera the following morning convicting Piland in the media. Mayor Ballard and Chief Ciesielski made similar statements. They all said it was police brutality and he should've been fired. Oh, and Ballard and Straub didn't attend the Merit Board's meeting for a single second.

Maybe this is just me, but if your boss, the CFO and the CEO all publicly said they thought you sucked and deserve to be fired, that could create the situation for a hostile work environment. I'd talk to a lawyer about a possible slander lawsuit.

Speaking of defamation, a former IMPD assistant chief is planning to sue over his demotion. He claims the treatment of Straub and others violated his civil rights, caused him to lose income, and humiliated him.

My gut is telling me that the tug-of-war between the rank-and-file/FOP and Straub isn't so much Straub's ideas are bad. But he comes off as very arrogant and seems to charge into situations shooting first and not asking questions. This can be seen perfectly in the situation with Officer Piland. Straub stuck by the original report (which really seemed bad for Piland)despite that evidence, over time, pans out and evolves. After the original report was completed, additional evidence was gathered that simply didn't support the original police report's conclusion. And Straub's failure to adapt to the evidence is just simple arrogance.

I was talking to someone at the meeting and I told them I come from the world of politics. And there's two schools of thought when it comes to the two-party system. You can change from within and support who you like and be part of the big tent, or you can leave the two party system and basically have very little influence on the political landscape.

The situation with Straub is that Straub is on the outside trying to change a body that he isn't a member of. I suspect if Chief Ciesielski was the one pushing these changes, we wouldn't be seeing half of this tug-of-war that we're currently seeing.

Doctor Director Straub Caught Sprucing Up Homicide Rate

The inspiration for "Bart" to start the Bart Lies! website was that every year, near the end of the year, it seemed like the homicide rate would get manipulated and would be reported lower by a few homicides lower than the actual homicide rate. Usually, media figures or some politicians would reduce the numbers by taking out any police-action homicides or self-defense figures. In other words, they use the murder rate. Which is fine, as long as they report it as such, and it usually only reduces the number of homicides by 0-5.

I noted last year that Prosecutor Carl Brizzi identified the number as the "homicide" rate and used a number that matches the number found at Bart Lies!.

But Doctor Director Frank Straub, the director of the Department of Public Safety, threw quite a curve ball my way when Bart pointed out that he said there have only been 89 homicides committed in Indianapolis this year. That's right, 89. And yes, he said "homicide", not "violent homicide" or "criminal homicide" or "murder". You can listen to the audio here.

Now, even if you don't accept Bart's count of 106, maybe you'll accept The Indianapolis Star's count of 102.

I'm still scratching my head on how you arrive at that number.

Several months back, The Star published an article where certain public officials were hoping that they'd get another year of less-than-100 criminal homicides. They list the number of non-criminal homicides at 8.

If you take the 102 number, and subtract 8, we're down to 94. Take away the two police action shootings, we're down to 92. Even if you take Eric Wells, who died after an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer ran into his motorcycle with his K-9 police vehicle, off the list, it only brings the number down to 91.

So how did Doctor Director Straub arrive at this number?

I'd sure like to know.

Straub's nomination is up for a vote in the Criminal Justice and Public Safety committee in the City-County Council on Wednesday at 5:30pm.

Doctor Director Frank Straub up for Reappointment, Will He Meet Any Opposition?

A bit more of an add on to my previous post, but thanks to an anonymous commenter on Indiana Barrister, I found a link to this letter authored by Bill Owensby, president of the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police.

In the letter, Owensby informs the FOP's members that Doctor Director Frank Straub has been renominated for the position of Director of Public Safety. The committee meeting is Wednesday at 5:30pm in room 260 of the City-County Building, and the full council takes it up on December 20th. While Owensby is careful not to come out for or against Straub's nomination in this letter, it's no secret that the FOP has been feuding with Straub throughout the year. Most recently, the FOP released a survey showing very low morale between the rank-and-file and the leadership. It'll be interesting to see how the FOP's members react to this.

It'll be interesting to see how council members react. Mary Morarity-Adams (D-District 17) is married to a deputy in the Marion County Sheriff's Department. Benjamin Hunter (R-District 21) is a former officer of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. Jack Sandlin (R-District 24), who was recently appointed to the council to replace Representative-elect Mike Speedy, is a former member of the Indianapolis Police Department and is a private investigator.

Both Moriarity-Adams and Hunter have a history of bucking party leadership. If the council wanted to fit in one more close party line vote, this would be it. Could Moriarity-Adams provide a crucial vote for Doctor Director Frank Straub? And could that impact her chances at slating, which is only two months away?

Fraternal Order of Police Vote to Pay Officer Bisard's Legal Fees

As has been reported in various media outlets today and yesterday, the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police will be paying Officer David Bisard's legal fees. The union president, Bill Owensby, has defended the decision, saying it was a democratic decision put up for a vote and that Bisard is in good standing with the FOP.

Bisard, months ago, was speeding with his lights and siren on to assist in serving a felony warrant for marijuana posession. At an intersection with stopped vehicles present, he swerved to avoid them but ended up hitting a group of motorcycles. One of the motorcyclists, Eric Wells, died on the scene. Two others, Mary Mills and Kurt Weekly, suffered traumatic injuries. Two hours later, Bisard was taken to a medical clinic to be treated for some injuries and his blood was drawn to be tested for intoxication, standard in any vehicular accident that involves injury or death. The blood alcohol content has been repeatedly reported to be 0.19, over twice the legal limit. The police report that was released last month stresses that dozens of law enforcement officials, medical personnel, and other people saw him during the time between the crash and the blood draw and claim he had no indication of being intoxicated. Drunk driving charges were originally filed, but later dropped, supposedly due to the technician who drew the blood wouldn't legally be able to do it in a criminal investigation.

As I reported earlier, I have a source that told me the lab somehow wrote down the wrong number, and the BAC was actually 0.019.

Since this happened, tensions have been tense between the general public and the police department. The Bisard case was only the latest in a long line of officers over the past several years that seem to be constantly in the news. Several protests concerning Bisard and the alleged beating of Brandon Johnson were held in warmer months, and Al Sharpton has made appearances in Indianapolis twice. Any political analyst would advice the rank-and-file of IMPD to stay far away from Bisard at this point.

So why would members of the police union overwhelmingly vote to pay for this guy's legal fees?

Bill Owensby, the president of the Indianapolis FOP, said during an interview with talk show host Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, that Officer Bisard is entitled to due process.

I agree with that. But what he isn't entitled to is having the FOP pick up the tab. Especially since, as Abdul has pointed out, the FOP is under no obligation to do so. They have passed on representing police officers in court in recent years.

So why do they feel the need to represent Bisard?

I have no idea.

But the FOP is tying their reputation now with Bisard. And I fear that if the FOP's reputation goes in the toilet, it'll only make it harder for the rank-and-file to be trusted by the public. And if the public feels they can't be trusted, then the rank-and-file won't be able to do their job of to protect and serve.

Please see this post at Indiana Barrister to listen to the Owensby interview Shabazz conducted this morning. It runs about 12 minutes long.

More on the Ongoing Officer Bisard Case

I am working on a post on the Marion County Sheriff's race, but I've got some interesting developments on the Bisard case that I'll share.

My reliable source has informed me has told me a few more interesting tidbits on the ongoing case regarding Officer Dave Bisard, the incident itself, and the post-incident handling of the case.

My source informed me that the Lawrence Police Department officer that monitored the blood draw was a close friend of Officer Bisard. He questions if that'd be an ethics problem, and if he informed Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officers/brass of this possible conflict, or if they knew and let him monitor it anyway.

My source also told me that the Marion County Prosecutor's Office has learned that the results were written wrong in regards to the blood alcohol content of the blood sample from Bisard. As has been reported before, 0.19 was the BAC that was published. My source says that the BAC was actually 0.019. The source says that BAC level is a violation of departmental policy, but not a violation of law. As I previously reported, this same source told me that the blood work was done at the Marion County Crime Lab and not at the State Department of Toxicology (see here).

My source maintains that the charges that still stand all come from the IMPD investigation, and that the alcohol charges which were the result of the work of the Fatal Alcohol Crash Team which is run out of the Prosecutor's office, were the charges that were dropped.

My source also confirms the suspicion of the "public image" of Frank Straub being an issue within IMPD. The day before the Bisard crash was when IMPD overwhelmingly voted down the proposed contract in a six to one margin. My source says the contract was voted down because Straub let it be known that he runs IMPD, and that he told Fraternal Order of Police President Bill Owensby that there'd be changes within the department, but he wouldn't announce the changes until the FOP held their elections for leadership. Apparently, Owensby didn't agree, and the contract was voted down.

Pundit Abdul Hakim-Shabazz shared the departmental policy that my source refers to over at his blog.

I have previously commented upon the good work that Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi has done with this case. Now, I'm not so sure how much I believe in those words. I'm not sure if I should be surprised, really.

Take-Home Cars and the City-County 2011 Budget

I haven't had the time to delve deeply into either the ACS Parking contract, or the 2011 proposed budget for the city-county. However, one aspect that has been talked up was the take-home car policy.

Councilor José Evans (D-District 1, also a mayoral candidate on the Democratic side) issued a press release announcing that Mayor Greg Ballard's proposed budget would eliminate the take-home car program from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department. Two blogs (here and in the comments section here) have raised doubts on what exactly the plan is going forward.

We are facing tough times within the city-county, and it isn't unexpected. Cities across the United States, from coast to coast, have slashed budgets, sometimes cutting into vital city services. And take-home cars seem like a luxury.

But, in general, I'm supportive of take-home cars for city-county law enforcement, which in Marion County, is IMPD.

So let's look at take-home car programs in other city-county departments, including the Sheriff's Department. The Marion County Sheriff and his deputies are in charge of the jails, securing the City-County Building, maintaining the sex offender's list, and a few other administrative duties. To me, there isn't a whole lot of emergency situations that could arise in the daily tasks that the Sheriff's Department handles, so their take-home car program should be one of the first on the chopping blocks. That also goes for every other non-IMPD department that has a take-home car program (which hopefully, isn't that many).


IMPD's officers will need to get to emergency situations often, and if that means providing them a working car, so be it. Now, if they live outside of the county, maybe some regulation or some type of fee might be permitted.

More on the Officer Bisard Case

A well placed source has informed me that he's heard that the Fraternal Order of Police is ordering a DNA test of the blood sample that had the 0.19 BAC level to make sure that it is Officer Dave Bisard's blood. Previously, union president Bill Owensby questioned if the blood vials were mixed up, as reported by The Indianapolis Star.

My source also goes into detail of what happened in the previous weeks, and how these events could play out as far as being used as evidence in a trial.

My source says that the blood test was done at the Marion County Crime Lab rather than the State Department of Toxicology which he says is the standard test lab for BAC testing. The source also adds that no one at the Methodist medical center, including medical staff, noticed any indication of intoxication. He says one arm was swabbed with alcohol prep wipe rather than bedidyne, then subsequently the other arm was swabbed with bedidyne and the blood sample then drawn. He says alcohol prep could contaminate the blood sample, and also could cause it's evidence in court to be questioned.

My source also went into detail on how the blood draw could be used, depending on if it was for an internal investigation or criminal, and how the consent was gotten. This was largely confirmed by a WISH-TV report which you can read here. He also adds that the blood has to be collected into a special type of tube, and the wrong container for the blood could cause it to be thrown out as evidence.

My source says that this is one of the messed up cases he's ever seen, I have to agree. There are still so many unanswered questions, and I can only hope that we'll get the full, complete story at some point.

Did Officer Bisard Get Special Treatment?

When a criminal situation occurs, or something that looks like it could be a criminal act, law enforcement officers have the duty to fully investigate the crime scene and what took place there. That includes detaining those accused of committing the crime for questioning, witnesses for testimony, and so on.

Officer David Bisard was involved in an accident involving two motorcycles. One of the motorcyclists, Eric Wells, died. The other two motorcyclists, Kurt Weekly and Mary Mills, are in stable condition but have suffered severe injuries.

Bisard was not detained at the scene, and his BAC wasn't taken until two hours after the accident occurred, and he drew a 0.19, more than twice the legal limit. An initial report from WTHR a few hours after the incident quoted Officer Brian Dixon implying that it was the motorcyclists' fault for not getting out of the way:

"Witnesses say the motorcycles kind of just stood still, not sure of which way to go, and the officer struck the motorcycles in the rear while trying to avoid this," said Officer Brian Dixon.

The lane the motorcycles were in also had a car in front driven by Tim Griffith, according to The Indianapolis Star. It is entire unrealistic to expect four vehicles to move to the side of the road while stopped at a traffic light.

If you or I drove our car as Bisard is alleged to and got into an accident involving several vehicles, there is no doubt in my mind that any other person would've been hauled to jail to be detained for questioning for a few hours at the very least. It took until Wednesday for Bisard to get to that point, and he didn't even spend a full hour in jail. Additionally, normal citizens don't get the benefit of a spokesperson to play the blame game.

That being said, I am not a "police state" believer. I don't believe, as Griffith's lawyer seems to, that there was a conspiracy at hand to shift the blame, and any failure to administer field sobriety tests can be attributed to the lack of obvious signs of impairment. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi filed several charges in relation to this case, including operating a vehicle while under the influence causing death and reckless homicide. And The Indianapolis Star is reporting that his license may be suspended, which makes me feel a bit easier since he is out on bail. While there was some things that did happen in the early part of the investigation that, in my opinion, shouldn't have happened, the process seems to be working now.

On a final note, please keep Kurt Weekly, Mary Mills, Eric Wells, and their respective families, in your prayers.

UPDATE: While writing this, it turns out I'm not the only one who had questions about how this all worked out. The Indianapolis Star has an article with some quotes from some of the victims' families. Police union president Bill Owensby is raises the possibility that blood vials might have gotten mixed up. This article also explains that two hours for a BAC test is normal, so now I feel a bit better about the initial investigation.

Overall, I believe that law enforcement didn't intentionally give him special treatment. But the fact that he was an officer led them to handle this case less aggressively. Owensby's and Dixon's comments and defenses certainly don't help police relations in this city, and it has NOT been a good summer for IMPD as far as community relations go.

And anyone can see this coming from a mile away: The families of the injured and dead are going to sue. I hope the city is putting away money right now, because not only will a long, drawn out legal battle be a drain on city resources, but it'll further tarnish our city's image.

The low price of bail also concerns me. Wasn't the mother who's neglect led to her child's death set at $200,000 bail?

UPDATE II: I heard an interview of a DUI lawyer this afternoon on WIBC. He said that, as far as the media reports go, there are two possibilities of how someone can have 0.19 BAC and not be noticeably drunk. He said that if someone drinks alcohol the night before and sleeps, their body will still register a BAC the next day for some time.

The other possibility is that, at some point after the accident, the officer left the scene, got wasted, and went to the hospital where he got his blood drawn.

Either situation seems very unusual and, until the investigation and trial reveals more information, seems to raise more questions than answers.

IMPD Helicopters: Where Did the Money Go?

From Fox 59 News:

INDIANAPOLIS - In 2009 they cost 1.2 million to operate. Some police tell Fox59 they're angry at the cuts saying the copters are an important tool in the police toolbox to fight crime. They say Mayor Ballard campaigned policing and community safety was his number one priority.

"Yes, it concerns me a lot how are they going to catch the criminal if they don't have helicopters," said Brenda Kent, an eastside resident.

"He's actually not living up to what he said," said Janice Hall, an eastside resident. "Sometimes (politicians) say what they have to say, just to get elected."

The helicopters were reportedly used to track convicted murderer Brian Reese who shot officer Jason Fishburn and hunt for the two killers in the Hamilton Avenue Murders.

"They should find the money for it. They shouldn't cut it," said Hall.

Mayor Ballard would not comment directly on the apparent cuts saying he has never wavered in his commitment to public safety and the citizens of Indianapolis.

Public Safety director Frank Straub said the helicopters are extremely expensive to operate and there must be clarity about their effectives.

State police maintain four helicopters at an annual operating cost of about 1.4 million dollars.

Other Midwest cities have helicopters including Columbus that has six, Louisville that has one, Chicago has two.

There's a few interesting tidbits in this story, as well as a theory that I have about where this money went.

First, it's important to remember that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is one of the few that walked out as winners of the 2010 city-county budget. Their funds actually increased. So the premise that budget cuts are hurting them are ridiculous. $1.2 million magically vanished. It's much more likely that it was shuffled elsewhere.

Mayor Greg Ballard, when introducing the budget to the City-County Council way back in 2009, said that a federal grant would cover hiring and training new officers. A separate grant the city applied for, but did not know if they got at the time the budget was approved, would cover the cars. It was later discovered that IMPD didn't have a ghost of a chance at the $1.7 million grant, as seen in this previous post.

The city has also stepped up their efforts on collecting parking citations, as documented by WISH-TV. In a box to the left side of the story, it notes that the city would like to use $1.3 million to purchase 20 new cop cars.

My theory is the city is combining the money marked for the IMPD helicopters and money collected from the parking citations into a pool to pay for the new IMPD vehicles. It makes sense, since parking citation money goes into the general fund after T-2, the company that manages the Parking "Court", takes their cut.

But the best part of the story is the State Police operate twice as many helicopters for less money, $1.2 million instead of $1.4. I'd sure like to know why that is.

One of the comments on another blog said this could be an ideal situation for IMPD and State Police to pool their resources for this very expensive equipment. I'd rather that happen than have two helicopters just sit and collect dust, especially in light of the fairly high homicide rate we had in January.

IMPD denied grant money for new officers: I hate it when I'm right

When Mayor Greg Ballard presented his budget to the City-County Council, one of the points he highlighted was that IMPD will be getting a budget increase, mainly to hire 50 new police officers. He said that federal money will be used to the tune of $11 million over three years. The budget also specified that another portion of it ($1.7 million) would be from a grant from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute to cover cars, pagers, and various other costs.

Today, Fox 59 broke the story that the grant application was rejected:

Fox59 News has learned IMPD has been rejected for a $1.7 million dollar grant to buy 50 new police cars. And, it appears more advance discussion with Indiana Criminal Justice Institute officials about restrictions for equipment would have let city leaders learn months ago they never had a chance to get grant money for cars.

"The equipment grants we give out are typically for $10,000 or less," said Neil Moore, executive director of the Justice Institute. "If you look at what we funded in the past you will see we don't fund cars for large police agencies."

IMPD was requesting $1.3 million for cars. The total request was $1.7 million dollars. The money is needed to match Federal money the city's taking to cover salaries for 50 new police officers in 2010. By taking the federal money the city has to guarantee it can buy equipment for the new police and cover their salaries after three years.

"We were a little surprised, we were counting on it," said Valerie Washington, CFO for public safety.
[...]

Interestingly enough, I questioned these numbers sounded in the first place. The city-county budget, by cutting every department except for IMPD, ended up with a $15 million surplus. Now why Mayor Ballard and the CCC use that to fund IMPD, or the permanently increased County Optional Income Tax to do so, who knows?

In fact, two die-hard Ballard supporters had no problems with IMPD funding when the budget was proposed as seen here.

While I did misspeak and call it stimulus money, the fact is federal money is never a guarantee. Eventually, it'll be gone and the city should be able to stand on it's own two feet. We should at least be able to provide the necessities without federal assistance. Unfortunately, some of my conservative friends don't see it in the same light.